The best documentary I’ve seen in recent years is called The Alpinist. It’s the story of a young mountaineer from British Columbia named Marc-André Leclerc, who I believe was the spirit of the West incarnate. He pursued solo winter ascents of some of the most hardcore routes in the known world, and did so for no other reason than love of the peaks. His life path verged on proto-messianic, but he met an early end at age 26 in a perhaps predictable yet still tragic way: he was caught in an avalanche while down-climbing the Mendenhall Towers outside of Juneau (see photo). He summited one final time before Gnon decided his essence was too elevated to be mortal, rather it was the stuff of myth.
He pursued his craft in obscurity, and in the documentary his discomfort being around others is obvious. The quality of his heart is transparently available for all to see — there is no hiding, there is no obscuring, there is only purity, self-reliance, elegance, and strength of being. The wolf-spirit resided in him. His example has moved the most hardcore of my friends to tears. He led a mythopoetic life and died a beautiful death. May we remember and enshrine him as saint in the eyes of Gnon.
Who else should be canonized? Show us the truth and beauty of their being!
Counterpoint: The spirit driving Leclerc was great and noble, but ultimately misdirected. The true hero, like Alexander or Napoleon or even Goethe, channels his greatness of soul in a direction that pulls his people forward.
>>3984 I agree that he was not a hero, but I'm not claiming that he was. I disagree that his spirit was misdirected. There are other archetypes besides hero that are valuable, noble, great. Leclerc is the archetype of Truth-seeker.
The peaks are metaphor for Truth: the Japanese mountaineering practice of sawanobiri, where the entire objective is to *follow a stream to its source*, makes this the most obvious,. Climbing peaks is the same, it is the athletic manifestation of Truth-seeking. People who climb peaks evince the capacity to actually achieve that goal, to grasp some piece of the whole Truth. In them and their efforts we see reflections of one of the highest ambitions of man, which is to come to know Gnon. In his death we see the beauty of striving to achieve that gnonsis at all costs.
Should every man seek to only know the Truth, to only climb the peaks? Certainly not. His complement should seek to spread and act using the Truth, to help his friends climb the peaks alongside him and spread the fruits of lofty summits to those friends.
>>3989 You're cherry-picking a bit by calling the entire thing 'a metaphor', especially given I said more accurately that mountaineering is the athletic manifestation of Truth-seeking. It's pretty straightforwardly a virtuous activity, even if merely for the physical fitness and testing of one's will against that larger will we call Gnon. It sharpens a person, in the same way that a more academic version of Truth-seeking sharpens a person. I hold firm that there is a beauty to Leclerc's example of utter dedication to a higher calling that is in strict alignment with Gnon, even if that higher calling isn't the entire picture.
Put another way, serving as an example of virtue in a particular direction is in fact a channeling of greatness of soul in a direction that pulls one's people together. He has certainly inspired me to get into the mountains more than I ordinarily would, and that in turn has pulled me forward. I must imagine this is true for many people who come into contact with the story of his life.
>>3994 I think you're missing the point of >>3989. It seems to me that people like to climb mountains because in the past it was a fruitful endeavor - it literally provides you with a better view of the land, which means more information regarding threats, bodies of water, roaming game. I don't know about the Japanese practice you cite, but following a stream to its source seems like a good way to acquaint oneself with the local flora and fauna. It's also pretty safe - you can't get lost or run out of water. So the cost-benefit analysis is much different than what Leclerc was doing.
If you want to admire explorers and adventurers, pick those who returned with new materials or information. Scaling a barren peak is a simulacra of the real thing, purely a training activity. It would be different if he'd been searching for new life forms in a cave, for example.
>>3983 Felix Baumgartner is another example of this sort of nobility of spirit. Died just recently, also taken by Gnon. He was a good example of the more continental european aristocratic style of western spirit, and made multiple comments about the dangers of mass migration and the shortcomings of democracy. It’s interesting that “spirits of the West incarnate” are so often those who pursue risky physical endeavors. Reminds me of the anecdote that a hugely disproportionate share of extreme outdoorsmen/adventurers have blue eyes. This is despite NW euros not being particularly strong or well adapted for sport. We often think of the western spirit as an intellectual one, but often its purest expressions are physical.
>>3984 It’s these men who embody Culture in their individual spirit with no outside influence who give the Goethe’s something to write about and the Alexander’s something to extend. Practicing those values fully and without conditioning or regard for others is the smallest unit of Culture. So really you have it the other way around.
The Individual who lives and dies by their own way of life is the Big Bang moment for cultures.
My grandmother's brother was one of these guys. When I read the writing by my great-uncle or other mountaineers, they don't seem to see the mountain as a metaphor for Truth or for anything else. The mountain is a mountain. They climb mountains because they love climbing and they love mountains. It's the pursuit of beauty and accomplishment for its own sake.
It caused a lot of tension with his wife and daughter. He was often away for long periods, and it wasn't always certain that he'd come back. One of his companions died on their trailblazing Everest climb. The women in the family never understood.
>>4004 > It’s these men who embody Culture in their individual spirit with no outside influence who give the Goethe’s something to write about and the Alexander’s something to extend.
What? Alexander was inspired by Achilles, the great warrior who contributed enormously to the Greek victory over the Trojans, not by some guy who went off and climbed mountains for its own sake.
We agree that extreme excellence is the goal. Where we disagree is whether extreme excellence can be directed at strictly asocial goals.
>>4016 Yes you are right about Alexander being influenced by Achilles, it’s On Record. What you’re missing is that people like Leclerc who operate entirely alone, are usually Not Recorded. History doesn’t record them usually. If a tree falls in a forest…
I’m using my Intuition to say that great men whose names we know probably looked up to extreme individuals of their time whose names we don’t know.
And yes, extreme excellence (lol) can be directed at asocial goals. It’s noble because God likes it (source of record: he told me)
Some of you in this thread seem to think that we should revere Leclerc, with op suggesting he be canonized. Based on the achievements on his Wikipedia page, I hold him in the same regard as many Olympians, but lower than the likes of Roger Bannister, Edmund Hillary, or Meriwether Lewis. Does anyone think this is wrong? If so, please clearly articulate why.
>Scaling a barren peak is a simulacra of the real thing, p
But of course it is not. It is a very real thing. It requires real strength, real fortitude, real courage, real daring, real thinking, and so forth. The simulacara would only require simulated virtues, not real ones. We admire the guy because we recognize he has performed feats on manhood no one on this board can match--real feats with life and death consequence. Far too blase to dismiss it as failing "cost benefit" analyses.
>> 4054 The simulacara would only require simulated virtues, not real ones.
No; it is a simulacra not because it doesn’t require traits that we normally call virtues, but because it does not attain desirable ends. You may say that we should admire “virtue” wherever we seem to find it, but that would require a great deal of proof. Most people believe that an excess of virtue, or the use of a virtue in the wrong circumstances, is an error. Too much fortitude in business is throwing good money after bad. Too much courage is rashness. Etc.
You admire his manhood but do you account for his cognition, his wisdom? Young men all over the world die daily in pursuit of ill-considered stunts which no doubt require all the traits you list. Do you hold them up as exemplars as well? Would you tell their stories to your son as tales of heroism, or as tales of caution?
